Mr. Speaker, the trade minister just signed the TPP, which will cost tens of thousands of good jobs across Canada. This deal was negotiated in secret and many Canadians still are not aware of the details, but the more they learn, the more they oppose the TPP. Maybe that is the reason the minister rushed to sign it without consulting Canadians and without any study of the economic impacts.

How are Canadian workers supposed to trust in consultations, with a minister who is in such a rush to sign away their jobs?

David LamettiLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade

Mr. Speaker, we signed the agreement precisely to give us the time to look at the accord, to look at the treaty in depth, to study it, to get the proper studies done, to do this work through our parliamentary committee. It is ratification that is important. We have not taken a decision on ratification yet. We signed it in order to give us the time to look at this treaty properly.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the TPP is a threat to our economy, and Windsor—Tecumseh and Essex county have already suffered hard blows to the auto sector. We know. Do not dismiss our concerns. We need meaningful consultation. The auto sector supports more than 120,000 good jobs in our province. However, the trade minister, back in 2008, wanted to let the big three go bankrupt, and now the trade minister signed a bad deal that puts our auto jobs at risk again—

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the passion the hon. member has demonstrated.

The bottom line is that we understand the importance of the automotive sector. It creates half a million direct and indirect jobs in Ontario. That is why I went to Detroit to meet with the global heads of the OEMs to talk about investments in Canada.

We will use the automotive innovation fund and the automotive supplier innovation fund to attract investments and to create jobs in this very important sector.

The reappointment process for IRB members will continue to reflect a performance evaluation consistent with the merit-based competency criteria. The Minister will continue to recommend the reappointment of members...after taking note of the IRB Chairperson's recommendations concerning performance and operational needs.

Could the government House leader tell us this? For the reappointed IRB members he has politically intimidated to resign, what specific problems with their performance were identified?

Mr. Speaker, we have said over and over again that the problem with the performance was the previous government's attempt, at five minutes to midnight, to appoint a whole bunch of people to jobs that took effect after it lost the election.

This is a case of projection. The real scandal is on that side of the House and the Conservatives are somehow trying to project it over here.

Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous. This is political interference in the courts. Is there any court in Canada that can escape the reach of the new Liberal government? No one has ever done this before. No one has even had the gall to attempt something like this before.

Every minister in the past who has interfered with these tribunals has resigned. When is he going to get to it?

Mr. Speaker, what a surprise to hear a member from that party speaking about attempting to intimidate a court. Canadians were shocked, and international jurists were shocked, when the former government tried to publicly intimidate the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. That is something we will never do.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when the government House leader was asked whether he and the cabinet complied with the law by voting four times last November 5, he said, “I want to assure the House and the member that at all times, everyone on this side complied with all legislation.”

However, Canadian Press reported on November 5, that Liberal MPs chose unanimously to defer a decision on the rules. The government House leader is reported as saying, “We didn't think it was appropriate [to vote]”. Could he explain this contradiction? Did he and his cabinet colleagues vote four times, in accordance with the law, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, the member is seeking to confuse two issues. The statute to which he referred refers to a caucus vote. A caucus vote is different than a cabinet vote, and the member has been in cabinet and he knows that cabinet does not vote. What he is trying to do is phrase a question to make it properly the business of the government when he knows very well that we answered that question after our first caucus meeting in November.

Mr. Speaker, government ministers, at all times, must comply with the law, whether they are in caucus or out. The government does not get to pick and choose which laws they get to follow and which laws are appropriate for them to follow. They must follow the law. The rule of law is the most sacrosanct principle of our democracy.

I encourage members opposite to Google the Parliament of Canada Act, section 49—

Order, please. The member is an experienced member. He knows that props are not allowed in the House, so I would ask him not to hold things up. We do not hold up any props, no matter what they are. The member knows that.

Mr. Speaker, you know very well that the Minister of Justice acts every day to uphold the rule of law. This is a fundamental responsibility that she takes very seriously. We are proud of the extraordinary way she does that.

The hon. member can be assured that at all times ministers, members of the caucus, and surely he would agree all members of Parliament uphold the the of law.

Yesterday morning, Quebeckers woke up to bad news. Rona has been sold to American interests. Rona employees do not know what is going to happen to them tomorrow, but the bosses are pocketing $40 million.

Will the minister commit to releasing the mandatory review of this foreign takeover and if so, will he table it here in the House so that everyone will know what is happening with our jobs here at home?

Mr. Speaker, I understand the concerns raised by the member opposite. That is why the Investment Canada Act is very clear. Any transaction over $600 million automatically triggers a net benefit analysis. We have the resources and process in place to do that. The Competition Bureau will also examine it from its perspective. The shareholders have to look at it. However, the bottom line is that any decision we make will be in the best interests of Canadians and Quebeckers.

Mr. Speaker, public safety officers put their lives on the line to keep us safe. Yet all too often they cannot access the support they need to cope with the trauma they experience. The results can be devastating. Some 39 first responders died last year from suicide. Hundreds are affected by mental health crises or operational stress injuries every year.

Could the Minister of Public Safety update the House on his commitment to help public safety officers and their families deal with the threat of operational stress injuries?

Ralph GoodaleLiberalMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell the House that this past week dozens of leading experts, including those from the front line, met at the University of Regina to discuss a national strategy on post-traumatic stress injuries. My parliamentary secretary and I participated.

First responders, those we ask to stand in harm's way to keep Canadians safe, rightfully deserve the highest level of care and support. The Minister of Health and I are mandated to ensure that this is in fact the case. We are grateful for all the national support and enthusiasm for that effort.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been all over the map on the fight against ISIS.

The Minister of National Defence suggested that we would stop ISIS from spreading into Libya. The Minister of Foreign Affairs said that no, we were not. The foreign affairs minister said that Canada would focus on improving security in Jordan and Lebanon and the defence minister said that no, we were going to stay in Iraq. Finally, when the defence minister was asked what the Liberal anti-ISIS plan was, he said that we should ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs who was in in Rome.

Now the minister is back from Rome. Has he given the defence minister his marching orders?

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the former government, this government will act together on the issue of fighting terrorism. It is why we are working very hard to have an integrated plan with the Minister of National Defence, who did a great job. The Minister of International Development did a great job, and I did my best as well.

With that, we will work in a complementary team with our allies in the coalition to fight this awful terrorist group, and we will do it courageously and with efficacy.

Mr. Speaker, as we know, in the complexities of conflict, we have to look at many different aspects of what causes it. When it comes to ISIL, Taliban, Boko Haram and the atrocities they commit, we have to be smart about it and ensure these atrocities are not committed again.